NeverOutNick Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I think there may be a solid chance that Nix trades down in the order for more second round picks. If someone wants Tannehill and hasn't taken him by them we might get some bargaining power. That said, if not, I think it's going to come down to the best player available at one of the many positions that we could take. I personally think that DE is going to be sewed up for now with Mario. OT is a position of concern with all the injuries we had last year. McGee is banged up and I doubt we are going to renew McKelvin, so I don't think that a CB is off the table. I would love to see Floyd as a #2 receiver to work with SJ, but I've heard reports that Nix thinks receivers are deep in the draft so he may wait for round 2. I'll be honest I'm ok with US taking Tannehill...guy is an athlete with accuracy and a strong arm. He could develop and be a great backup behind Fitz for a couple years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geno Smith's Arm Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 (edited) Martin has plummeted since the combine. He also played in the PAC10, and didn't face SEC-type talent. I don't think the Bills will reach for him at 10. I think it's BPA in the first, and that won't be Martin. I wish there was an LT there, but I don't see it this draft. It's looking to me like M. Floyd, much to my chagrin. Considering how few teams are using 4-3, they likely feel they can find a LB in the 2nd or 3rd. Writing off Kuechly as a middle linebacker is wrong. He can play outside as well, and is a 3-down linebacker (but I don't expect them to select him). Looking at the Bills new defense, you have to expect that teams will zero in on the linebackers as the weak area. The Bills are gonna need depth there too, because guys are gonna get hurt (if Barnett goes down, the right side of the defense will be soft). They will acquire a couple new linebackers. Edited March 18, 2012 by Matthews' Bag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted March 18, 2012 Author Share Posted March 18, 2012 I think there may be a solid chance that Nix trades down in the order for more second round picks. If someone wants Tannehill and hasn't taken him by them we might get some bargaining power. That said, if not, I think it's going to come down to the best player available at one of the many positions that we could take. I personally think that DE is going to be sewed up for now with Mario. OT is a position of concern with all the injuries we had last year. McGee is banged up and I doubt we are going to renew McKelvin, so I don't think that a CB is off the table. I would love to see Floyd as a #2 receiver to work with SJ, but I've heard reports that Nix thinks receivers are deep in the draft so he may wait for round 2. The top of the draft has a lot of uncertainty as of now. Floyd could be gone, he could be there. Tannenhill could be there or gone, Richardson could even fall given teams not drafting RBs too high. I don't know if I have seen a scenario in the draft where I could see a team below us wanting to trade up. If Floyd is there, I think it will be a tough call for them, yeah there is depth (Stephen Hill - Gailey may be on the know if he is a player or bust), but can we get one later and is that drop off less than say a CB or LT or DE/LB or whatever. I wouldn't rule us out trading back into the end of rd1 or higher in rd 2 to grab a LT that fell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverOutNick Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Considering how few teams are using 4-3, they likely feel they can find a LB in the 2nd or 3rd. Writing off Kuechly as a middle linebacker is wrong. He can play outside as well, and is a 3-down linebacker (but I don't expect them to select him). I've been thinking the same thing about Kuechly for a while now, he seems solid no matter what LB position he plays in a 4-3 and your right we need depth there and Wanny wants fast LBs too (4.5 is fast) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 The Bills are not going to draft a guy at #10 based on position of need. There doesn't seem to be any 4-3 LB worthy of the #10 pick. Guys like Upshaw are 4-3 DEs and it's hard for me to imagine they will draft one. The Giants proved again and again that you cannot have enough pass rushers. If Upshaw is there and is the best player on their board, they should get him. The only position they are not going to pick with the #10 pick is a QB or RB. The whole things revolves on the grades that Nix and the scouts have on 4-5 guys. Nix is very likely to take the BPA regardless of position unless he is a RB, interior OL, and maybe DT. The thing is, the guys that will be available at #10 who are worthy of being a #10 pick are not likely DE, CB or QB. To me, it all depends on what grades Nix and the scouts put on 4-5 guys: Reiff, Martin, Floyd, Hill and Tannehill. If they really like either of the two LTs at #10 and he is available, I think they take him immediately. We have no idea what grades they have on these guys though. If they don't have great grades on the LT and Floyd is rated high, he is a likely choice. Nix wants a big fast guy at #2 WR. Floyd and Hill fit that bill, regardless of whether you or I think Hill is worthy of #10. Nix will not care. If they love Tennehill at 10 and think he can be a franchise QB, they will take him. I very much doubt they do though. I will be happy with a starting LT or a starting DE...I don't think they take a QB this year. We are still a season away from that. Getting a QB with the #1 sends a WRONG message to this team. May be they will be pick some one in the 3th or 4th round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted March 18, 2012 Author Share Posted March 18, 2012 The Giants proved again and again that you cannot have enough pass rushers. If Upshaw is there and is the best player on their board, they should get him. The only position they are not going to pick with the #10 pick is a QB or RB. I will be happy with a starting LT or a starting DE...I don't think they take a QB this year. We are still a season away from that. Getting a QB with the #1 sends a WRONG message to this team. May be they will be pick some one in the 3th or 4th round. The Giants plan works well if you don't have other holes and we have plenty as of right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverOutNick Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 The Giants plan works well if you don't have other holes and we have plenty as of right now. Exactly and Upshaw is the last player I want at #10. He's a product of the system he's in but when he gets to the NFL does not have good pass rushing ability and will only be good against the run...I think we can get a passrusher or 2 later to compliment Mario (we have Kelsay, Merriman, and Carrington for now). I'm ok with a lot of players at 10 but not Upshaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 (edited) I think I'm the only one in the world that doesnt want to see more front 7 drafted high. We need more offense too, requiring an upgrade to the WR corp and Oline. On defense what really need is to bolster our cover guys because McGee and Mckelvin just aren't getting it done. I'd go BPA in rounds 1 - 3 restricted to the positions of OT, WR and CB. Edited March 18, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsMagic1 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Draft alabama kids, upshaw like. Haven't we learned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whites Bay Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Not that One Bills Drive is calling ME for advice, but if it WERE my shot, I'm thinking it's the best OLT in the draft still available at #10. Why? Because the Front Office has spent 2+ years rebuilding the lines, one step at a time, and it's a project that is one step away from completion. 1) Looking at the D-Line, the Bills are essentially done. Am I thrilled about Kelsay or Carrington at RDE? Not necessarily, but I'm not going to address that "glaring need" with the #10 pick. They'll suffice. 2) As for the O-Line, Hairston's acceptable at RT, and I'm not going to burn the #10 on a ORT. The Urbik/Reinhart are solid, Wood is well above average, and Levitre is also well above average (I just don't want him at center ever, ever, ever again). The only thing missing is a top-flight OLT. Make that pick, and you've put together two lines with very solid talent that are (a) young and under multi-year contracts and (b) going to be able to play together and gel and mesh together for at least 3-4 years. That part of the overhaul - which, quite frankly, I believe to be the KEY part of the overhaul - is complete. The lines are done with an OLT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geno Smith's Arm Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 (edited) Not that One Bills Drive is calling ME for advice, but if it WERE my shot, I'm thinking it's the best OLT in the draft still available at #10. Why? Because the Front Office has spent 2+ years rebuilding the lines, one step at a time, and it's a project that is one step away from completion. 1) Looking at the D-Line, the Bills are essentially done. Am I thrilled about Kelsay or Carrington at RDE? Not necessarily, but I'm not going to address that "glaring need" with the #10 pick. They'll suffice. 2) As for the O-Line, Hairston's acceptable at RT, and I'm not going to burn the #10 on a ORT. The Urbik/Reinhart are solid, Wood is well above average, and Levitre is also well above average (I just don't want him at center ever, ever, ever again). The only thing missing is a top-flight OLT. Make that pick, and you've put together two lines with very solid talent that are (a) young and under multi-year contracts and (b) going to be able to play together and gel and mesh together for at least 3-4 years. That part of the overhaul - which, quite frankly, I believe to be the KEY part of the overhaul - is complete. The lines are done with an OLT. I don't think most people here dispute the need for a LT. I just think that most don't believe that an LT that will be there at 10, is going to be much better than a guy they can get in the 2nd round. Like, is the 3rd best LT much better than the 5th best? And do you pass on a top flight talent at another position of need, for that 3rd best LT? Reaching on picks to fill holes, has played a big part in keeping the franchise in the hole all these years. Edited March 18, 2012 by Matthews' Bag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggerdaddynj Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I don't think most people here dispute the need for a LT. I just think that most don't believe that an LT that will be there at 10, is going to be much better than a guy they can get in the 2nd round. Like, is the 3rd best LT much better than the 5th best? And do you pass on a top flight talent at another position of need, for that 3rd best LT? Reaching on picks to fill holes, has played a big part in keeping the franchise in the hole all these years. According to the so-called experts, there's a substantial drop-off from Adams and Martin to the next best OT. For example, check out Drafttek: http://drafttek.com/2012-NFL-Draft-Prospect-Rankings/Top-Left-Offensive-Tackles.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geno Smith's Arm Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 (edited) According to the so-called experts, there's a substantial drop-off from Adams and Martin to the next best OT. For example, check out Drafttek: http://drafttek.com/2012-NFL-Draft-Prospect-Rankings/Top-Left-Offensive-Tackles.asp Yeah, and both those guys are rated at the bottom of the 1st round. Martin has fallen fast, and Mike Adams has "Mike Williams" type concerns about his work ethic. Neither is a shoo in to be any more effective as a rookie starter, than Bell or Hairston are going into this year. They may select Reiff if he is there, but I think the Bills will draft a LT in the 2nd or 3rd, and either resign Bell, start Hairston, or bring in a stray veteran. Edited March 18, 2012 by Matthews' Bag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggerdaddynj Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Yeah, and both those guys are rated at the bottom of the 1st round. Martin has fallen fast, and Mike Adams has "Mike Williams" type concerns about his work ethic. Neither is a shoo in to be any more effective as a rookie starter, than Bell or Hairston are going into this year. They may select Reiff if he is there, but I think the Bills will draft a LT in the 2nd or 3rd, and either resign Bell, start Hairston, or bring in a stray veteran. I'd be happy resigning Bell (I'm also concerned about Adams--not so much with Martin though). It would open things up in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
counselor777 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 just some rookie food for thought here. what if Quinton couples what there at the 10th pick. could you see those two ends on the D line. each motivating the other now how good would that look? of course i am sure that wont happen...but if Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 just some rookie food for thought here. what if Quinton couples what there at the 10th pick. could you see those two ends on the D line. each motivating the other now how good would that look? of course i am sure that wont happen...but if Take him over to the goalpost fellas… I'll grab the duct tape. Seriously, Coples has some devotees around here but in general he's not really a popular choice among the our posters. Welcome to the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTO Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Quite Honestly, I think that Buffalo will pick up the best CB at 10. No doubt, our current CBs are aging so now is the time to mix things up. As far as McKelvin, is it possible that he can be repositioned to play as a SS or S. Im quite sure that he played there a couple of games last year and did fantastic. If he thrived there then I would extend him and not bring back Scott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QCity Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 As for the O-Line, Hairston's acceptable at RT Pears is the starting RT, we didn't just extend him at $3+ million a year for him to be a backup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 (edited) I would try to sign Bell to a one year deal with incentives for both playing time and offensive or team success. Then try to draft a LT in the first three rounds, if he has huge upside (preferably in the first). Then give that guy and Hairston a year to develop behind Bell. It would be wise for Bell, too, where Buffalo is his best chance for immediate success. Players like Bell, who are not getting the contracts they expected to, are often willing to sign those kinds of deals because they all feel like they will play and play well and not get hurt and get their big payday the next year. Edited March 18, 2012 by Kelly the Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 "LB w 1st round pick.OL or LB 2nd and 3rd." Looks like you did to me. LB w 1st OL or LB 2nd and 3rd. Looks to me like you are suggesting we could pick 3 LB's with the first three picks. OL= offensive line..sorry for confusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts